Stephen Judd complains about the slogan for a New Zealand beer:
"Brewed by brewers, not chemistered by chemists".
Stephen's (reasonable) complaint is that "if it weren’t for chemists, there would be no commercial brewing". But I was more interested in the copywriter's attempt to create a verb for what chemists do to things, by a bizarre sort of chiasmic analogy: brewer:brew::chemist:chemister.
It also occurred to me that many names of occupations are agentive forms of verbs for the characteristic activity: weaver, cobbler, driver, cleaner, writer, robber, teacher, and so on. But there are some occupations, like chemist, where not only is the name not an agentive form of a verb, but in fact there's no verb at all for the characteristic activity. What a chemist does (I guess) is to apply the science and technology of chemistry to practical or theoretical problems — but there's no verb for that, no "chemicize" or "chemistrate" or whatever.
(The OED includes an obsolete verb chemic(k) meaning "To transform or transmute by alchemy", or rarely "To bleach (cotton, linen, etc.) with a solution of calcium or sodium hypochlorite". There's no evidence that either chemists or their employers are interested in reviving it.)
Linguists, physicists, biologists, etc., are in a similarly verbless condition.
Philosophers philosophize, but botanists would mostly object to being described as people who botanize. (Which is too bad, in my opinion — they should reclaim that formerly honorable word — but that's another story.) Most poets would also be offended at being said to poetize or poeticize, though both of these words exist, and are not always disparaging.
Anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists don't really anthropologize, sociologize or psychologize, at least not as a characteristic practice — though at least those words exist in principle, by virtue of the ability of -ology words to evoke -ologist and -ologize forms.